Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rendex-mcp

rendex-mcp

by copperline-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

watch_runs

Retrieve paginated run history for a watch, showing changed status, diff score, and signed before/after/overlay images. Use cursor to get next page.

Instructions

Read a watch's run history (newest first), paged. Each run includes changed, diffScore, and signed before/after/overlay image URLs. Returns { items, nextCursor }.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "watch_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe watch ID (UUID).
cursorNoPagination cursor from a previous nextCursor.
limitNoPage size (1–100).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is read-only, returns paged results, and specifies the fields included in each run. However, it does not mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, comprising two sentences that front-load the main purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure. It covers the primary use case and parameter roles. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or edge cases, but these are acceptable for a simple read operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context by explaining pagination flow (cursor and limit) and the role of the ID, but does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('read'), resource ('watch's run history'), ordering ('newest first'), and pagination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'watch_list' (list watches) and 'watch_run' (trigger a run).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a watch ID, nor does it state when not to use it (e.g., for triggering a run).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools